search for: ashift

I sent a zvol from host a, to host b, twice. Host b has two pools, one ashift=9, one ashift=12. I sent the zvol to each of the pools on b. The original source pool is ashift=9, and an old revision (2009_06 because it''s still running xen). I sent it twice, because something strange happened on the first send, to the ashift=12 pool. "zfs list -o space"...

Hello, Daniel, Apparently your data is represented by rather small files (thus many small data blocks), so proportion of metadata is relatively high, and your<4k blocks are now using at least 4k disk space. For data with small blocks (a 4k volume on an ashift=12 pool) I saw metadata use up most of my drive - becoming equal to data size. Just for the sake of completeness, I brought up a similar problem and a non-intrusive (compatibility-wise) solution in this bug: https://www.illumos.org/issues/1044 Main idea was to let ZFS users specify a minumum data...

...hows an shift value on each vdev in my pool, I was just wondering if it is vdev specific, or pool wide. Google didn''t seem to know. I''m considering a mixed pool with some "advanced format" (4KB sector) drives, and some normal 512B sector drives, and was wondering if the ashift can be set per vdev, or only per pool. Theoretically, this would save me some size on metadata on the 512B sector drives. Cheers, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20101124/d5dfd208/atta...

.. evidently doesn''t work. GRUB reboots the machine moments after loading stage2, and doesn''t recognise the fstype when examining the disk loaded from an alernate source. This is with SX-151. Here''s hoping a future version (with grub2?) resolves this, as well as lets us boot from raidz. Just a note for the archives in case it helps someone else get back the afternoon

...like someone to confirm-or-reject the discussed statement. Paraphrasing in my words and understanding: "Labels, including Uberblock rings, are fixed 256KB in size each, of which 128KB is the UB ring. Normally there is 1KB of data in one UB, which gives 128 TXGs to rollback to. When ashift=12 is used for 4k-sector disks, each UB is allocated a 4KB block, of which 3KB is padding. And now we only have 32 TXGs of rollback." Is this understanding correct? That''s something I did not think of previously, indeed... Thanks, //Jim http://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinu...

...root' id=0 guid=7417064082496892875 children[0] type='disk' id=0 guid=16996723219710622372 path='/dev/dsk/c1d0s0' devid='id1,cmdk@AST3160812AS=____________9LS6M819/a' phys_path='/pci@0,0/pci-ide@e/ide@0/cmdk@0,0:a' whole_disk=0 metaslab_array=14 metaslab_shift=30 ashift=9 asize=158882856960 is_log=0 tank version=10 name='tank' state=0 txg=9305484 pool_guid=6165551123815947851 hostname='cempedak' vdev_tree type='root' id=0 guid=6165551123815947851 children[0] type='raidz' id=0 guid=18029757455913565148 nparity=1 metaslab_array=14 met...

...tree type=''disk'' id=0 guid=3365726235666077346 path=''/dev/dsk/c3t50002AC00039040Bd0p0'' devid=''id1,sd at n50002ac00039040b/q'' whole_disk=0 metaslab_array=13 metaslab_shift=31 ashift=9 asize=322117566464 -------------------------------------------- LABEL 1 -------------------------------------------- version=3 name=''fpool0'' state=0 txg=4 pool_guid=10406529929620343615 top_guid=3365726235666077346 guid=3365726235666077346...

If I want to use a batch of new Seagate 3TB Barracudas with Solaris 11, will zpool let me create a new pool with ashift=12 out of the box or will I need to play around with a patched zpool binary (or the iSCSI loopback)? -- Dave Pooser Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com

...l block byte offset from the beginning of a slice, the value inside offset must be shifted over (<<) by 9 (2^9=512) and this value must be added to 0x400000 (size of two vdev_labels and boot block). Does this calculation really go on in hard-coded 2^9 values, or in VDEV-dependant ashift values (i.e. 2^12 for 4k disks, 2^10 for default raidz, etc.)? 2) Likewise, in Section 2.6 (block size entries) the values of lsize/psize/asize are said to be represented by the number of 512-byte sectors. Does this statement hold true for ashift!=9 VDEVs/pools as well? 3) In Section 1.3 they dis...

Well this is a new one.... Illumos/Openindiana let me add a device as a hot spare that evidently has a different sector alignment than all of the other drives in the array. So now I''m at the point that I /need/ a hot spare and it doesn''t look like I have it. And, worse, the other spares I have are all the same model as said hot spare. Is there anything I can do with this or

Hi. Is the problem with ZFS supporting 4k sectors or is the problem mixing 512 byte and 4k sector disks in one pool, or something else? I have seen alot of discussion on the 4k issue but I haven''t understood what the actual problem ZFS has with 4k sectors is. It''s getting harder and harder to find large disks with 512 byte sectors so what should we do? TIA...

...y original approach. However I am totally unclear about the 512b vs 4Kb issue. What sata disk could I use that is big enough and still uses 512b? I know about the discussion about the upgrade from a 512b based pool to a 4 KB pool but I fail to see a conclusion. Will the autoexpand mechanism upgrade ashift? And what disks do not lie? Is the performance impact significant? So I started to think about option 2. That would be using an external JOBD chassis (4-8 disks) and eSATA. But I would either need a JBOD with 4-8 eSATA connectors (which I am yet to find) or use a JBOD with a "good" expan...

...''/dev/dsk/c7t1d0s0'' devid: ''id1,sd at SATA_____Hitachi_HDT72101______STF607MH3A3KSK/a'' phys_path: ''/pci at 0,0/pci1043,8231 at 12/disk at 1,0:a'' whole_disk: 1 metaslab_array: 23 metaslab_shift: 33 ashift: 9 asize: 1000191557632 is_log: 0 DTL: 605 -------------------------------------------- LABEL 1 -------------------------------------------- version: 22 name: ''puddle'' state: 0 txg: 55553139 pool_guid: 13462109782214169516 hostid: 44...

...hostname: ''nexenta_safemode'' top_guid: 7124011680357776878 guid: 15556832564812580834 vdev_children: 1 vdev_tree: type: ''mirror'' id: 0 guid: 7124011680357776878 metaslab_array: 23 metaslab_shift: 32 ashift: 9 asize: 750041956352 is_log: 0 create_txg: 4 children[0]: type: ''disk'' id: 0 guid: 15556832564812580834 path: ''/dev/dsk/c0d0s0'' devid: ''id1,cmdk at AQEMU_HARDDI...

Hi ZFS Discuss, I have a 8x 1TB RAIDZ running on Samsung 1TB 5400rpm drives with 512b sectors. I will be replacing all of these with 8x Western Digital 2TB drives with support for 4K sectors. The replacement plan will be to swap out each of the 8 drives until all are replaced and the new size (~16TB) is available with a `zfs scrub`. My question is, how do I do this and also factor in the new

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

Hello all, I have an oi_148a PC with a single root disk, and since recently it fails to boot - hangs after the copyright message whenever I use any of my GRUB menu options. Booting with an oi_148a LiveUSB I had around since installation, I ran some zdb traversals over the rpool and zpool import attempts. The imports fail by running the kernel out of RAM (as recently discussed in the list with

So, what is the story about 4KB disk sectors? Should such disks be avoided with ZFS? Or, no problem? Or, need to modify some config file before usage? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Dear Everyone, I am running FreeBSD 9.1-BETA1 amd64 on ZFS in KVM on Gentoo Linux on ZFS. The root pool uses ashift=13 and is on a single disk. The kernel fails to mount the root filesystem if the system has more than 3584MB of RAM. I did a manual binary search to try to find the exact upper limit, but stopped when I tried 3648MB. FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE works perfectly. Yours truly, Richard Yao -------------- ne...

Hi, I am using FreeBSD 8.2 and went to add 4 new disks today to expand my offsite storage. All was working fine for about 20min and then the new drive cage started to fail. Silly me for assuming new hardware would be fine :( The new drive cage started to fail, it hung the server and the box rebooted. After it rebooted, the entire pool is gone and in the state below. I had only written a few